Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: drew4utoo Date: Dec 1, 2005 8:07am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Good News and an Apology: GD on the Internet Archive

Tell the folks at GDM how you feel! Here's a copy of the e-mail I ust sent them about 10 minutes ago.

To Whom It May Concern:

Please remove my name from your mailing list and refrain from sending me any further sales information by e-mail. I would also like to be removed from the Almanac mailing list as well. I will no longer be making any purchases from GDM because of the new policy regarding the live music archive. While I still am very much a fan of the Grateful Dead's music, I cannot in all honesty support the members of the group financially with my purchases, knowing that they are the people responsible for this policy. I am especially disturbed by the comments made by Dennis McNally in reference to the live music archive when he said, "The idea of a massive one-stop Web site that does not build community is not what we had in mind. Our conclusion has been that it doesn't represent Grateful Dead values." Having spent time visiting this website over the past few months I can say that I very much felt a sense of community browsing the shows in the collection, listening to the music, reading the reviews and comments, and reminiscing about the shows I'd attended. I have to say that Mr. McNally's comments are quite contrary to my impressions of the LMA and I have to wonder exactly what he's referring to when he says " Grateful Dead values"?

I suspect that all of this boils down to capitalistic values and even though I respect the remaining band-members rights to their intellectual property, I think they are wrong in their decision to take back something that has existed in the public domain for years, with their knowledge and approval. The distribution of the Dead's music (AUDs & SBDs) through the trading community has only benefited the group and increased the public's awareness and desire to purchase official music and merchandise in my opinion. Why punish us with this new policy now?  It is not as if Deadheads broke into the vault and stole the soundboard tapes! The ability to listen to and download quality shows from LMA actually rekindled my interest in the Dead's music and made me eager to purchase items from the "official catalogue" such as the new DVD and Fillmore shows CDs. Sadly I will not be making these purchases or any future purchases from GDM because of the band's/management's recent decision.

I've been a fan and supporter of the Grateful Dead since 1977, went to my first show in 1979 and didn't stop going until the year before Jerry died. I feel betrayed by this decision and I'm afraid that this new policy and the feelings I have now will forever taint my recollections and experiences with the band. If things change in the future and LMA is allowed to provide public access to download all shows not being officially released then of course my position would change as well and I would once again feel comfortable making purchases from GDM. If this is to happen, I hope that it is soon. Until then…adios!





Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Chris U. Date: Dec 1, 2005 8:52am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Good News and an Apology: GD on the Internet Archive

A great letter! Thank you for taking the initiative.

Up above someone wrote

"Let them sell their soundboards, it's their right, isn't it?"

Um, sure. The Dead can sell THEIR soundboards. I'll pay whoever $5,000 right now for the master reels to the complete Austin show from November 1972.

But what about the soundboards that the Dead have been allowing people to trade freely for the past, oh, 30 years? Do the Dead have the right to suddenly say, "Oh, you know that free distributiong thing with those tapes? We changed our minds."

I am not sure that they do. In fact, I doubt that they have copyrights to those tapes.

"But we still get to trade auds (oh, and the THOUSANDS of soundboards out in circulation already, if you don't want to drop the bucks once or twice a year)."

Do we get to trade soundboards? So the Dead "allows" us to freely trade them on tape as long as they aren't offered digitally for free? Is that how it works?

And the Dead has a legal right to do this ... based on ... what exactly?

I'm still waiting for an answer with a tad more thought behind it than "They made the music."

Orson Welles made a movie called "The Stranger."

Guess what? It's in the public domain. Orson Welle's estate doesn't get to run around and threaten people who try to distribute copies of the movie.

See how that works?

It's called "the law." Our rights come from a document called the US Constitution.

The Grateful Dead didn't write the US Constitution.

They wrote a song called Jack Straw, though. Remember that one? "We can share the women, we can share the wine."

But not the soundboards, evidently.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spinneresque Date: Dec 1, 2005 12:00pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Good News and an Apology: GD on the Internet Archive

People, please! Don't be fooled! This was their plan ALL ALONG, and the worst part about it is that they think you will believe it wasn't, that they were 'moved be the reaction of the deadheads.' Half of us are pacified because they 'gave us back the AUDs.' All the work and community contribution and VOLUNTEER TIME that has gone into building this archive, all gone, and for what. It is SO SAD.

I wrote this petition:

Grateful Dead music inspires in its fans an extraordinary passion, hence this news of pulling the archive is breaking the heart of thousands of people today. We see the Grateful Dead historically as a representation of something pure and good. In order to love something so much, you have to trust it. Despite the stereotypes and social mockery, we have proudly remained fans of the Grateful Dead for all these years, defending it and ourselves because we knew in our heart that this music we are following is good, and pure. Some say we have no right to protest this mid-game ‘changing of the rules.’ But what those people are not accounting for is the MILLIONS of hours that Deadheads have collectively spent in combining, uploading, remastering, patching flawed recordings.....voluntarily, and out of love, and trusting that it would be shared freely. In our opinion, at this point to stop the free sharing of these recordings is so sad, and so wrong. Jerry is gone, and he has no say, and we all know what he would have said. This is unfair to us. So much work has gone into building the archive. Please let it stand.

You can sign it here:
http://new.petitiononline.com/02108108/petition.html

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ski Peru Date: Dec 4, 2005 1:42am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Good News and an Apology: GD on the Internet Archive

Chris U. -- Dude you seem to be making more noise than anyone else here, but most of that noise is just misinformation! You're obviously not a lawyer, you have a minimal understanding of copyright law, yet you're spouting off here about what GD can and cannot do legally, and how the laws and the US Constitution work???

And now you've dragged Orson Welles into it, like somehow that's going to prove your point. Well here are the facts in response to your errors:
You wrote -- "Orson Welles made a movie called "The Stranger." Guess what? It's in the public domain. Orson Welle's estate doesn't get to run around and threaten people who try to distribute copies of the movie.
"
In terms of your argument, you're not painting the complete picture. In 1946 Orson Welles directed 'The Stranger' as an employee of the studio International Pictures, through the film's Producer, Sam Spiegel. The rights to the work were owned by either the studio, or the producer, but not by Welles himself, nor his estate. Without specific contractual arrangement, the rights over an employee's work product are maintained by the employer. Years earlier, when he directed Citizen Kane, Welles had a unique contract with RKO which gave him full creative control over the finished product, however he never enjoyed such contol over subsequent studio productions -- only of those which were self-produced did he maintain ownership. That the Welles estate has no control over what is done with 'The Stranger' has nothing to do with Welles' ownership rights -- he never had any with regard to 'The Stranger'. The film is now public domain because either copyright law did not permit the extension of rights, or the owner did not exercise them.

Before you go off any further trying to lay public domain ownership over recorded material - have a quick look at this - it might surprise you to learn just how wrong you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Public_Domain_and_the_Internet